One Argument Eastern Orthodox Can’t Answer?

Recently watched the episode on R&T entitled “One Argument Eastern Orthodox Can’t Answer!”, previously entitled “An Orthodox Professor’s to Papal Infallibility at Constantinople III”. This affords an opportunity to look further into something pertinent to the question of papal error from a historical point of view. In this video, Michael Lofton sought to explain how the acceptance of Agatho’s letter at the Council of Constantinople (681) is a proof that Eastern Orthodoxy had accepted the essence of Vatican 1 (1870) in her own dogmatic history, in no less than the context of an Ecumenical Council. Thus far, this does stand to be true. As far as I can see, anyway.

However, Lofton then tries to reconcile how it is that the Council can anathematize Pope Honorius for heresy with the claims of Pope Agatho on how the see of Rome had been, both hitherto and forever more, unblemished without any error. Pope Leo II, who was the Pope who ratified the Council after reading about the heresy of Honorius, also ratified the anathema against Honorius for heresy. In his own words, Honorius was guilty of heresy because he “๐‘‘๐‘–๐‘‘ ๐‘›๐‘œ๐‘ก ๐‘Ž๐‘ก๐‘ก๐‘’๐‘š๐‘๐‘ก ๐‘ก๐‘œ ๐‘ ๐‘Ž๐‘›๐‘๐‘ก๐‘–๐‘“๐‘ฆ ๐‘กโ„Ž๐‘–๐‘  ๐ด๐‘๐‘œ๐‘ ๐‘ก๐‘œ๐‘™๐‘–๐‘ ๐ถโ„Ž๐‘ข๐‘Ÿ๐‘โ„Ž ๐‘ค๐‘–๐‘กโ„Ž ๐‘กโ„Ž๐‘’ ๐‘ก๐‘’๐‘Ž๐‘โ„Ž๐‘–๐‘›๐‘” ๐‘œ๐‘“ ๐ด๐‘๐‘œ๐‘ ๐‘ก๐‘œ๐‘™๐‘–๐‘ ๐‘ก๐‘Ÿ๐‘Ž๐‘‘๐‘–๐‘ก๐‘–๐‘œ๐‘›, ๐‘๐‘ข๐‘ก ๐‘๐‘ฆ ๐‘๐‘Ÿ๐‘œ๐‘“๐‘Ž๐‘›๐‘’ ๐‘ก๐‘Ÿ๐‘’๐‘Ž๐‘โ„Ž๐‘’๐‘Ÿ๐‘ฆ ๐‘๐‘’๐‘Ÿ๐‘š๐‘–๐‘ก๐‘ก๐‘’๐‘‘ ๐‘–๐‘ก๐‘  ๐‘๐‘ข๐‘Ÿ๐‘–๐‘ก๐‘ฆ ๐‘ก๐‘œ ๐‘๐‘’ ๐‘๐‘œ๐‘™๐‘™๐‘ข๐‘ก๐‘’๐‘‘”. What could it possibly mean to pollute or “stain” the purity of the Apostolic See if not by endorsing error?

So there is, prima facie, a bit of an inconsistency. How can Agatho’s claims and the anathema against Honorius, supported by the Council and the Apostolic See itself, be reconciled? Lofton does this by saying that the Council and Pope Leo II had the distinction in mind that Honorius was writing as a private person and not in his office as universal teacher. In my opinion, this simply has no foundations in the historical record, and what Lofton is doing is pushing distinctions which simply no one thought about in the 7th century. All the evidence shows that Honorius intended to write as the Pope to the East with commands to adhere to certain stipulations. In other words, there is no doubt that Honorius’s letters are at least issued in the mode of the Pope’s non-definitive magisterium. However, this would undermine his position [Lofton’s] that the Pope’s magisterial decrees are always protected from teaching heresies that harm the soul since the Council judged the letters of Honorius as following “๐‘กโ„Ž๐‘’ ๐‘“๐‘Ž๐‘™๐‘ ๐‘’ ๐‘ก๐‘’๐‘Ž๐‘โ„Ž๐‘–๐‘›๐‘”๐‘  ๐‘œ๐‘“ ๐‘กโ„Ž๐‘’ โ„Ž๐‘’๐‘Ÿ๐‘’๐‘ก๐‘–๐‘๐‘ ; ๐‘กโ„Ž๐‘’๐‘Ÿ๐‘’๐‘“๐‘œ๐‘Ÿ๐‘’ ๐‘ค๐‘’ ๐‘’๐‘›๐‘ก๐‘–๐‘Ÿ๐‘’๐‘™๐‘ฆ ๐‘Ÿ๐‘’๐‘—๐‘’๐‘๐‘ก ๐‘กโ„Ž๐‘’๐‘š, ๐‘Ž๐‘›๐‘‘ ๐‘’๐‘ฅ๐‘’๐‘๐‘Ÿ๐‘Ž๐‘ก๐‘’ ๐‘กโ„Ž๐‘’๐‘š ๐‘Ž๐‘  โ„Ž๐‘ข๐‘Ÿ๐‘ก๐‘“๐‘ข๐‘™ ๐‘ก๐‘œ ๐‘กโ„Ž๐‘’ ๐‘ ๐‘œ๐‘ข๐‘™.” Note that last part: ๐—ต๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐˜๐—ณ๐˜‚๐—น ๐˜๐—ผ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐˜€๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—น. And so, if the letters of Honorius were magisterial decrees, then there exists a strong case that the non-definitive decrees of the Pope were understood by the Council to be able to be harmful to souls. Needless to say, Pope Leo II had no issue with these claims.

Let’s look briefly at how Honorius’s decrees must have been issued in his office as the Pope.

Sergius of Constantinople issued an official letter to Pope Honorius recounting the theological dispute that was taking place between Patriarchs in the East on the subject of how many activities/energies/wills are in Christ. This was not some fly by night debate between bishops. This was an inter-Patriarchal struggle for the orthodoxy of the Byzantine Empire, which had been threatened with disarray over the matter. At the end of his letter to Honorius, this is the request he gives:

“๐‘Š๐‘’ ๐‘’๐‘ฅโ„Ž๐‘œ๐‘Ÿ๐‘ก ๐‘Œ๐‘œ๐‘ข๐‘Ÿ ๐ด๐‘™๐‘™-๐‘ ๐‘Ž๐‘๐‘Ÿ๐‘’๐‘‘๐‘›๐‘’๐‘ ๐‘  ๐‘ก๐‘œ ๐‘Ÿ๐‘’๐‘Ž๐‘‘ ๐‘Ž๐‘™๐‘™ ๐‘œ๐‘“ ๐‘กโ„Ž๐‘–๐‘ , ๐‘Ž๐‘›๐‘‘ ๐‘Ž๐‘  ๐‘ค๐‘’ ๐‘›๐‘œ๐‘ค ๐‘ก๐‘œ๐‘œ ๐‘“๐‘œ๐‘™๐‘™๐‘œ๐‘ค ๐‘กโ„Ž๐‘’ ๐บ๐‘œ๐‘‘-๐‘๐‘™๐‘’๐‘Ž๐‘ ๐‘–๐‘›๐‘” ๐‘Ž๐‘›๐‘‘ ๐‘š๐‘œ๐‘ ๐‘ก ๐‘“๐‘ข๐‘™๐‘™ ๐‘™๐‘œ๐‘ฃ๐‘’ ๐‘คโ„Ž๐‘–๐‘โ„Ž ๐‘–๐‘  ๐‘–๐‘› ๐‘Œ๐‘œ๐‘ข, [๐‘ค๐‘’ ๐‘๐‘’๐‘” ๐‘Œ๐‘œ๐‘ข] ๐‘กโ„Ž๐‘Ž๐‘ก, ๐‘–๐‘“ ๐‘กโ„Ž๐‘’๐‘Ÿ๐‘’ ๐‘–๐‘  ๐‘Ž๐‘›๐‘ฆ๐‘กโ„Ž๐‘–๐‘›๐‘” ๐‘คโ„Ž๐‘–๐‘โ„Ž ๐‘–๐‘  ๐‘๐‘’๐‘Ÿโ„Ž๐‘Ž๐‘๐‘  ๐‘“๐‘œ๐‘ข๐‘›๐‘‘ ๐‘ค๐‘Ž๐‘›๐‘ก๐‘–๐‘›๐‘”, ๐‘ก๐‘œ ๐‘๐‘œ๐‘š๐‘๐‘™๐‘’๐‘š๐‘’๐‘›๐‘ก ๐‘กโ„Ž๐‘–๐‘  ๐’ƒ๐’š ๐’•๐’‰๐’† ๐’ˆ๐’“๐’‚๐’„๐’† ๐’˜๐’‰๐’Š๐’„๐’‰ ๐’‰๐’‚๐’” ๐’ƒ๐’†๐’†๐’ ๐’ˆ๐’Š๐’—๐’†๐’ ๐’•๐’ ๐’€๐’๐’– ๐’ƒ๐’š ๐‘ฎ๐’๐’… ๐‘Ž๐‘›๐‘‘ ๐‘๐‘ฆ ๐‘Œ๐‘œ๐‘ข๐‘Ÿ โ„Ž๐‘œ๐‘™๐‘ฆ ๐‘ค๐‘œ๐‘Ÿ๐‘‘๐‘  ๐‘ค๐‘–๐‘กโ„Ž ๐‘Œ๐‘œ๐‘ข๐‘Ÿ โ„Ž๐‘œ๐‘๐‘’๐‘‘-๐‘“๐‘œ๐‘Ÿ ๐‘ ๐‘ข๐‘๐‘๐‘œ๐‘Ÿ๐‘ก, ๐’‚๐’๐’… ๐’•๐’ ๐’Š๐’๐’…๐’Š๐’„๐’‚๐’•๐’† ๐’•๐’‰๐’† ๐’Ž๐’‚๐’•๐’•๐’†๐’“๐’” ๐’˜๐’‰๐’Š๐’„๐’‰ ๐’€๐’๐’– ๐’‹๐’–๐’…๐’ˆ๐’† ๐’“๐’Š๐’ˆ๐’‰๐’•”

(Pauline Allen, Sophronius of Jerusalem and Seventh-Century Heresy, , (Oxford University Press, 2009; pages 161-217) p. 195)

The Patriarch of Constantinople is asking for the prelate of the Apostolic See to “judge” upon the subject of the Christological debate taking place in the inter-Patriarchal context of the Byzantine East. Therefore, there is no way that Honorius’s response to Sergius would be in the mode of a “private person”. Honorius’s response letter also commands the Patriarch with an admonition to hold what Rome unanimously holds. Honorius writes:

“๐‘Œ๐‘œ๐‘ข๐‘Ÿ ๐ต๐‘Ÿ๐‘œ๐‘กโ„Ž๐‘’๐‘Ÿโ„Ž๐‘œ๐‘œ๐‘‘ ๐’˜๐’Š๐’๐’ ๐’‘๐’“๐’๐’„๐’๐’‚๐’Š๐’Ž ๐’•๐’‰๐’Š๐’” ๐’˜๐’Š๐’•๐’‰ ๐’–๐’”, ๐‘—๐‘ข๐‘ ๐‘ก ๐‘Ž๐‘  ๐‘ค๐‘’ ๐‘ก๐‘œ๐‘œ ๐’–๐’๐’‚๐’๐’Š๐’Ž๐’๐’–๐’”๐’๐’š ๐’‘๐’“๐’๐’„๐’๐’‚๐’Š๐’Ž ๐’Š๐’• ๐’˜๐’Š๐’•๐’‰ ๐’€๐’๐’–, ๐’–๐’“๐’ˆ๐’Š๐’๐’ˆ ๐’€๐’๐’– ๐‘ก๐‘œ ๐‘Ž๐‘ฃ๐‘œ๐‘–๐‘‘ ๐‘กโ„Ž๐‘’ ๐‘–๐‘›๐‘ก๐‘Ÿ๐‘œ๐‘‘๐‘ข๐‘๐‘’๐‘‘ ๐‘’๐‘ฅ๐‘๐‘Ÿ๐‘’๐‘ ๐‘ ๐‘–๐‘œ๐‘› ๐‘œ๐‘“ ๐‘กโ„Ž๐‘’ ๐‘›๐‘’๐‘ค ๐‘ฃ๐‘œ๐‘๐‘Ž๐‘๐‘ข๐‘™๐‘Ž๐‘Ÿ๐‘ฆ ‘๐‘œ๐‘›๐‘’ ๐‘œ๐‘Ÿ ๐‘ก๐‘ค๐‘œ ๐‘Ž๐‘๐‘ก๐‘–๐‘ฃ๐‘–๐‘ก๐‘–๐‘’๐‘ ’, ๐’‚๐’๐’… ๐’•๐’ ๐’‘๐’“๐’๐’„๐’๐’‚๐’Š๐’Ž ๐’˜๐’Š๐’•๐’‰ ๐’–๐’” ๐’Š๐’ ๐’๐’“๐’•๐’‰๐’๐’…๐’๐’™ ๐’‡๐’‚๐’Š๐’•๐’‰ ๐’‚๐’๐’… ๐’„๐’‚๐’•๐’‰๐’๐’๐’Š๐’„ ๐’–๐’๐’Š๐’•๐’š ๐’•๐’‰๐’† ๐’๐’๐’† ๐‘ณ๐’๐’“๐’… ๐‘ฑ๐’†๐’”๐’–๐’” ๐‘ช๐’‰๐’“๐’Š๐’”๐’•, ๐‘†๐‘œ๐‘› ๐‘œ๐‘“ ๐‘กโ„Ž๐‘’ ๐‘™๐‘–๐‘ฃ๐‘–๐‘›๐‘” ๐บ๐‘œ๐‘‘, ๐‘ก๐‘Ÿ๐‘ข๐‘’ ๐บ๐‘œ๐‘‘, ๐‘คโ„Ž๐‘œ ๐‘–๐‘› ๐‘ก๐‘ค๐‘œ ๐‘›๐‘Ž๐‘ก๐‘ข๐‘Ÿ๐‘’๐‘  ๐‘’๐‘“๐‘“๐‘’๐‘๐‘ก๐‘  ๐‘กโ„Ž๐‘’ ๐‘ค๐‘œ๐‘Ÿ๐‘˜๐‘  ๐‘œ๐‘“ ๐‘กโ„Ž๐‘’ ๐บ๐‘œ๐‘‘โ„Ž๐‘’๐‘Ž๐‘‘ ๐‘Ž๐‘›๐‘‘ ๐‘œ๐‘“ ๐‘กโ„Ž๐‘’ โ„Ž๐‘ข๐‘š๐‘Ž๐‘›๐‘–๐‘ก๐‘ฆ.” (ibid., 205)

Honorius also wrote a 2nd letter to Sergius wherein he speaks of his writing to the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Jerusalem with the same orders. One can read them in full at the link in the comments.

There is no doubt that these letters dispatched from Honorius to the East fulfill the conditions which Pope Agatho called the “exhortation and admonitions of our predecessors in the Apostolic See” which he thought were infallible per the promise of Christ.

I think the best bet we have as Catholics is to say that the Council was not infallible in its condemnation of Honorius and that the current magisterium could revisit this precise question on whether the “fact” of Honorius’s letters are truly erroneous. I agree with Lofton that, given a private read of Honorius’s letters, they are free from the error of monotheletism. Nevertheless, he did order that the Church should be silent on whether in Christ there are two activities, which the Council saw as wrong.

But this also opens up doors for the Orthodox. If it is true that Catholics can look back upon Constantinople (681) and import distinctions that would allow unwanted tensions free from being real contradictions, then so can the Orthodox. Catholics go back in time and re-measure what decrees are what level of authority, despite the fact that we have no evidence of that in the players of the time. Why could not the Orthodox? For instance, the Orthodox could argue that the anathema of Honorius itself *counts* as an undoing of whatever else was said at the Council that would prove otherwise. In other words, what forbids an Orthodox today from saying, “Well, the Council did not, in so many articulated words, explicitly deny the claims to perpetual infallibility in the Roman Pontiffs, but the anathema of Honorius COUNTS as an undoing of that claim”? I would venture to say that the same nuancing that goes on with our re-sizing what counts in the Papal magisterial past opens the doors and leaves room for the Orthodox to do the same re-sizing. And, in this case, they can re-size the logical significance of Honorius’s condemnation as a substantial subtraction of Agatho’s claims that the Roman Pontiff could never be a heretic, or teach error.


9 thoughts on “One Argument Eastern Orthodox Can’t Answer?

  1. Great response! However, I believe that the weight of this question may be unnecessarily high. The Church’s ultimate goal is to guide individuals towards salvation, which may have been overlooked in this discussion. Papal infallibility should be viewed in a soteriological context, meaning that the Pope in union with the Church will never jeopardize the Church’s salvific nature. As language and meanings evolve over time, it may become difficult to maintain an intellectual infallibility as most Catholics understand it.

    My view is that the concepts of papal infallibility and the infallibility of the church need to be reinterpreted in soteriological terms. By doing so, we can hope to achieve the goal of reuniting as One Church with God’s grace.

    • The Church’s salvation depends on the Church Councils, Acts 15, not one bishop as first among equals among all bishops: all bishops are equal in Christ, all Apostles are equal to each other in Christ, and there is no First Apostle as Prince/King of the Apostles as in allegedly Peter as a Pope. Peter was a Saint, not a Pope of Rome.

  2. I suspect the solution here is no solution at all – we simply need to look at the balance of evidence and see who comes out on top while acknowledging our fallibility as human beings.

  3. Hey Erick I kinda have some questions about this. What about the bishops of Rome and their opinion on this incident with Pope Honorius? I’m particularly interested in the popes soon after the Sixth Ecumenical Council because I believe they are key in understanding this situation. Do we have any of their writings online translated from Latin specifically dealing with this topic? Thanks

    Edit: I’m new and pretty late anyway to all of these discussions. Let me know if you have already addressed this in other articles or youtube videos.

  4. Roman Catholics have been squirming over the case of Honorius for centuries.
    I, for one, aren’t going to resize anything. The condemnation by an Ecumenical Council is a big deal. Saying the condemnation of Honorius was not infallible is a terrible argument and confirms my worst suspensions about modern papal groupies.

  5. Anything Roman Catholics appeal to in order to say the Pope is the head of the whole church is merely a forgery like the Donation of Constantine, and if that hasn’t been proven YET it none the less WILL BE. Period. Amen.

  6. “I think the best bet we have as Catholics is to say that the Council was not infallible in its condemnation of Honorius and that the current magisterium could revisit this precise question on whether the โ€œfactโ€ of Honoriusโ€™s letters are truly erroneous. ”

    Apologies, but I’m not sure I understand this.
    Could one not simply say that the condemnation only had force to the extent it was approved by Leo II, and that Agatho’s letter concerns definitive statements only?
    Why would a Catholic be commited to Lofton’s thesis?

    • That assumes that those who have the sufficient truth need to be able to answer every possible human logical question to prove their Church is the True Church founded by Jesus Christ, that truth is known by logical argumentation of human rational philosophy, not by believing the Revelation of God The New Testament (and OT with Anagiskomena) according to the Orthodox guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Orthodox Church (Acts 9, John 16:13), in the 7 Ecumenical Councils of Orthodoxy (325-787 AD), and the main period of Orthodox theology, 325 AD to 1453 AD, Constantine through Photius, Palamas, and St. Mark of Ephesus, al 1444/1445. Answering errors of Florence, which was not an Ecumenical Council of the True Church. God bless you. Reject Filioque to save your soul from atheism.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s